Larry;
First of all thank you for the link to Obama’s plan. To many of us that is the first time we’ve ever had any notion of what his proposal might be. It still bothers me, refused to reveal it or go into it on the campaign trail. I suspected it was because he had no real plan and considering how frequently, almost daily, he has edited other posts on that site, we just can’t trust what he presents until we actually see it in writing or in the form of a bill before Congress. You must admit, BHO has been less than transparent on almost all issues.

Long ago during the Clinton presidency I chanced to read the Clinton proposal for Universal Health-care and it was socialized medicine, plain and simple. Since Obama refused to divulge anything about his except, in name, and what seemed were empty campaign promises, there was nothing substantial for comparison. That’s what made us so nervous. I for one still cannot trust him until I actually see what is finally put on record. He has flip-flopped on us far too many times already. So I hope you can understand and appreciate our guarded skepticism. Were he a Republican or Independent, I’m sure you would feel the same.

As to the suggestion as to a form of limited free health-care (barring elective procedures) for those under a certain income level, I would have no problem with it, but it would require a screening process and I would want to see it offered only to U.S. citizens. I might bend to accept those on an approved working visa (and dependents who are here legally and residing with them here over one half of the year). After all they are active contributors to our society, just so long as they filed and pay their fair share of taxes here. Foreign exchange students may also be included since they are being hosted by a family here for that year. However, if you are a tourist or illegal, sorry but you have to pay full price. I would suggest setting it at something in the range of say $40-60,000 per year income with an additional, $15-25,000 for each additional dependent, with further adjustments for local costs of living expenses and increases as a start. Most making under that amount cannot afford to pay the cost for health insurance or are not offered it as part of their work package. This could also be used to transform our current medicare system so that the elderly do not risk loosing that which they would have willed to their children following their deaths to unscrupulous nursing home litigation under our current laws. For those making say $50-250,000 (With similar adjustments) then you could go with the higher steps for deductibles. Non-taxpayers such as the homeless would be required to show some form of ID such as state ID cards to be checked against the national databases to prove their identity and citizenship. Such security precautions would be required to screen for fake ID’s.

I would similarly include prescription drugs under that medical services umbrella so that no one could be denied the prescriptions or care they might desperately need for good health and survival. I would also tie in other medical procedures to include dental. So that incorporates pharma’s, services, and procedures. The greedy pharma’s, plastic surgeons, etceteras could still charge their outrageous prices to those who can afford it.

I would concede to expecting some minimal regulation to police substandard services and practices at a state level, much like Board of Health Departments. And perhaps a limited form of tort so that federal and state or even international government bodies might file suit individually or jointly against a company, charge them with anti-trust violations, and/or fine them (which may be appealed as high as the Supreme Court, the loser paying court costs) rather than the class action suits of the past. This would give the government an option to take legal action against malpractices such as we’ve seen with products from China.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Obama doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about. He flip-flopped on so many things. He said CLEARLY at the end of his campaign that he wanted a socialize Universal Health Care Program. What you just mentioned has nothing to do with a Socialize Universal Health Care Plan.
This guy is an idiot. He talks from both side of his fat ugly mouth, depending on who is listening to him. What you have just mentioned looks more like McCain’s plan. Gee I hate people like him… you never know what they think or what they will do. Ignorant flip-floppers. So he changed his mine one more time and he fooled all of the people by promising them that he wanted to create a Socialize Universal Health Care System. Boy, this guy is not going to stay Potus for long… delete by Mata What a lunatic!

I’m sorry Larry, but I do not understand how an intelligent guy like you voted for and ignorant idiot guy like him.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Larry, let’s go back to the “rare” opportunity of agreement. And that would be first to separate those who “can” afford health insurance, and those who cannot.

In one way, that is wise, altho I am hard pressed to determine who gets to chose who “can afford” vs “who cannot afford”. As a subcontractor in status… and aligned with small business owners… what looks “affordable” on paper to the government powers may not be.

Since most would purchase insurance … available only at a monthly cost… if they felt secure with that added “payment” to their montly nut, let’s go backwards one step that few are addressing. And that that is first how to make the US health care system less devoted to litigation protection, and how to decrease the base costs of supplies and manpower (including fed oversight employees that add to cost, but contribute little to personal care). That would be the starting point.

I’m not sure how the “outsourcing” would affect the overall outcome. The US pharmas can sell at a discount to foreign entities, who then resell to the US with the needed mark up. Negotiations has it’s value. But I agree… it’s also the devil in the details (and the add ons) in the negotiations that make the difference when giving this “approval”… thus the battles outlined above.

Second.. litigation protection. Big reason for the mark up. Spend a mil to avoid a 5 mil suit? Heck yeah. Something needs to be done about class action suits and other frivolous litigation that attorneys use to be prolific. Then again, for every action there is a reaction. So who knows if you’ll find your local class action attorney vying for the burger flipping job.. right? LOL

Yes, joke there. Altho put an attorney or 2 out of work, and you just increase the unemployment number, right?

Since I think the first step is to cut all the pork from the health care expense, I prefer a plan that evidently no one has offered. Obama’s offered to save money via putting medical records online (boy that makes me feel better… more privacy intrusion possible with the “savings”). And he’s also offered to cut costs by importing.

Then add his quasi universal health care that will turn into 100% government healthcare since it will drive out the competition.

I don’t see any way that we are preserving the quality and care, plus making a dent in the end goal of letting more people acces that end care.

BTW… and don’t take these any more seriously that your excerpted paragraph from Obama’s site (which is busy being cleaned of “promises” as we speak.. but I have saved PDF copies as a just in case…)

Here’s a (only slightly) more detailed marketing schpiel of Obama’s health care plan.

And, here’s his (only slightly) more detailed version of his cancer research plans.

I haven’t had a chance to go thru both with a fine tooth comb yet. I know his end goal… universal health care. That is a given that he freely admits – ala health care is a “right” given by God… if you use our founding father’s principles. Funny… I don’t see God stepping up to the plate to cover the costs… Must be that render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s bit. Health care just doesn’t fit that category.

These PDFs are all he has provided as his first steps to achieving that end goal… but the financial costs (not included in these campaign marketing pieces) just don’t fit in the budget he has proposed via accountants…. at least combined witih the economy we have.. and “not what we wished we had”.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The Obama plan isn’t a hyper-socialized plan. Here’s an executive summary (from Obama’s website: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ )

The Obama-Biden plan both builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans continue to rely upon, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. Under the Obama-Biden plan, Americans will be able to maintain their current coverage, have access to new affordable options, and see the quality of their health care improve and their costs go down. The Obama-Biden plan provides new affordable health insurance options by: (1) guaranteeing eligibility for all health insurance plans; (2) creating a National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses purchase private health insurance; (3) providing new tax credits to families who can’t afford health insurance and to small businesses with a new Small Business Health Tax Credit; (4) requiring all large employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees or towards the cost of the public plan; (5) requiring all children have health care coverage; (5) expanding eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and (6) allowing flexibility for state health reform plans.

The plan also allows importation of drugs from foreign countries and allows Medicare to negotiate for prescription drug prices. Obama has said they will first focus on getting all children insured.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Like or Dislike: 0  0

So how about some real straight talk for a change? If we separate those who can’t get coverage from those who can, we can focus more on helping the needy. “So if you can get coverage,” says Gillespie, “don’t wait for Washington. Go on out and get some.”

Don’t want to miss out on a (perhaps rare) opportunity for agreement. Agree on the above point, entirely. The only thing that I’d add is that people who can afford insurance and don’t buy it aren’t guilty of a victimless “crime.” They add huge costs on those of us who are responsible. Hence the need for a mandate, in my opinion, similar to the mandate that car insurance must be obtained in order to license a car.

- Larry W/HB

Like or Dislike: 0  0

REASON.TV’s

Nick Gillespie isn’t making a run for the White House, but he knows how to get coverage to at least half of the 45 million Americans who need it. And while Barack Obama and John McCain argue about who’s got the best health care plan, each ignores the simplest solution. Call it the Gillespie Plan: If you want health insurance, get some.

“Of people currently classified as uninsured, a conservative estimate says about 45 percent of them would be able to get health insurance right now if they wanted it,” says economist Glen Whitman. That estimate comes from a study headed by a Johns Hopkins University researcher, which separates those who could get insurance into one of two categories: Those who earn enough money to buy it, and those who qualify for existing government programs.

So how about some real straight talk for a change? If we separate those who can’t get coverage from those who can, we can focus more on helping the needy. “So if you can get coverage,” says Gillespie, “don’t wait for Washington. Go on out and get some.”

Previously linked in my comment #20:

HOW TO FIX AMERICA’S HEALTH INSURANCE CRISIS: GET SOME

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Larry, please watch this video. And Mata, it would be nice if you could embed it for me. Thanks.

SWEDISH MYTHS AND REALITIES
Johan Norberg discusses the “Scandinavian model”
http://www.reason.tv/video/show/508.html

[Mata Note: This one was battling the "embed" code, Craig. Tried a few times but their embed code results in nothing here. But gave it the ol' rah rah effort. Sorry.]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Larry,

I don’t know where you got your idea of Obama’s plan. But this is not his plan at all. His plan is STRICLY a socialize universal Health care system. And there is nothing, NOTHING good in it.

Like I said Americans have a real good Health care system, why ruin it? It would take just a few things to make it perfect:

1- Make it compulsory for all Americans that have revenue over an amount of XXX dollars to get a private health care insurance. By compulsory, I mean that if they don’t do it, they will not be able to get free treatments that will be reserved only for the ones who can not REALLY afford it.

2- Go with the McCain’s plan and let people have a tax cut of 5,000$ to be able to purchase an insurance plan.

3- Again, go with the McCain plan and make a new law that will enable people to shop for their insurance plan in every States of the USA to get a better price with that competition.

4- Every Americans that REALLY cannot afford insurance plan because their revenues are lower than XXX dollars; will automatically be treated free by the government.

That is much better than Socialist Universal care system. You are assured by this way of doing, that the free plan for the poor will never get crowed with waiting lists. The Sweden Plan, I don’t like. Sweden citizen have a tendency just like Canadians to brag about their system, but in reality, both stinks. In Canada, everybody is on waiting list. In Sweden, only the poor are on waiting lists. With the system that I propose for the U.S., nobody will be on waiting lists.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The pharmaceutical business is entirely globalized. I can’t think of a single industry more globalized. These companies are forever swallowing each other and merging with each other and doing all manner of deals with each other.

Here’s a list of the top 50 companies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies

Note that Genentech (#19) nominally based in the USA (South San Francisco) is, in fact, owned by Hoffman-LaRoche (“Roche”), based in Europe.

Additionally, countries nominally based in the USA may do their clinical trials abroad and companies based abroad may do their clinical trials in the USA.

So I don’t know how “protectionism” regarding pharmaceutical companies would ever work, from the standpoint of “protecting” US jobs. When one pharma buys another, typically there is consolidation of management, but they don’t typically pack up research labs, marketing departments, etc. and move them out of one country to another. And the vast network of sales reps (biggest part of the budget, remember, is sales and marketing) has to be maintained within the US health care system, no matter where corporate offices are located.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Larry, thanks for weighing in. I haven’t gotten to your first comments in depth yet, but have an immediate question to this comment:

I haven’t seen anything in Obama’s health plan proposals which would destroy the existing private health care system.

I agree, but then Obama is considering change this to a universal health care system. So I suspect that’s a premature assumption when relating to an existing system dominated by the private/free market.

But my question is INRE prescriptions drugs specifically. Obama proposes reducing costs by importation of drugs from out of country… i.e. what so many want to call outsourcing.

In one way, this provides needed competition for US based pharmas. On the other hand, how do you think this outsourcing affect the US based pharma business… i.e. job layouts, profit losses, etc.

Like or Dislike: 0  0